The Instigator
Con (against)
0 Points
The Contender
Pro (for)
7 Points

Is Socialism better than Capitalism?

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 4 votes the winner is...
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/28/2016 Category: Politics
Updated: 8 months ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,926 times Debate No: 85698
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (87)
Votes (4)




This is an easy one. Please type your best argument using the keyboard that capitalism provided for you. Also, please remember that this entire debate site would not be created if not for capitalism. Please go ahead.


I believe socialism benefits the poor instead of a select few

In that way I believe it is better

You have not defined what is "better" so I will do so now

Better (regarding this debate): what is best for those without or those in need and not focus on those who are rich

So you now need to explain how capitalism would benefit the poor more than the rich instead of socialism

Rigging debates in your favor is not polite so I intend to show you why its not fun to be on the receiving end
Debate Round No. 1


The idea that Socialism helps the poor and hurts the rich is not only incorrect, but is almost the exact opposite of what really takes place.

Example story:

A poor man cannot afford to buy food, so he goes to local bakery where bread is handed out to those that are in need. The bakery(under law) is forced to continue to supply the bread to the needy. The poor man continues to come by everyday and collect his "free" bread, day in, day out. The bakery, continues to provide although it is cutting into profits and lowering the value of the business overall. A couple months go by and the bakery, in order to cut costs, lays off an employee. That employee, who is now unemployed, cannot afford food and goes to the bakery for free bread. This is Socialism.

To understand the dangers of Socialism, you must look at the repercussions in the short-term and the long-term. The current hype is that the poor will get help and the rich will pay more. While this may be true in the short term, it is not sustainable. Look at Greece. Look at Spain. The Capitalist system allowed for America to become the greatest nation on the planet. Without the innovation and drive to better ourselves through Capitalism, we would be no better than the European nations that riot in the streets because entitlements are being slashed.

Socialism hurts everyone and creates a dependence on government.


Before i argue my main points i would like to point out the flaws in my opponents logic in R2

Firstly he uses an example story to prove something. An example story does not validate any of his claims and in this case is extremely biased and one sided.

My opponent also points out all of the failed socialist nations like Greece or Spain but fails to acknowledge the socialist nations that are prospering ex all of the Scandinavian countries that practice democratic socialism.

Definition of socialism is: a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the government.

1. Socialism is a part of America whether you like it or not

Here is just a list of 20 things that is funded by socialism

1. The Military/Defense
2. Highways/Roads
3. Public Libraries
5. Fire Dept.
6. Postal Service
7. Student Loans and Grants
8. Bridges
9. Garbage Collection
10. Public Landfills
11. War
12. Farm Subsidies
13. CIA
14. FBI
15. Congressional Health Care
16. Polio Vaccine
17. EPA
18. Social Security
19. Museums
20. Public Schools

Without taxation may of these things would not exist or be much smaller than it is today. My opponent said that America is just a capitalist nation. Do you really think we would've survived if these things didn't exist in our country? No? Thank socialism

2. Capitalism and its flaws

Capitalism is actually worse than socialism when it comes to choice. When you walk into a supermarket theirs a lot of chip brands correct? Now lets imagine that the government did not regulate monopoly companies. All you would see is Brand X because that company is now the dominant company and is stealing all the competition from other companies. Now consumers have less of a choice than usual because there is nothing else to buy. Without government intervention companies can do what they want and hurt the consumer. A great example of this is Rockefeller's oil company.

Capitalism's main focus is on profit, nothing else. If the FDA (The food and drug administration) any company could put whatever they wanted into foods without any fault. Government intervention stopped this. However in a capitalistic society where the government cannot intervene in the market this cant happen.

3. Capitalism is actually working against itself

The south of America prides itself on independence from the government. We see this all the time. Many states in the north like pass things close to socialism and have been making key laws that strengthen the government in the work place. Now the main arguement my opponent has is: socialism makes people lazy and they wont work because of entitlements.

Red States actually recieve more things from the government than blue states. Thats strange.

4. Democratic Socialism has thrived in the Scandinavian region

I think ill let the graphs do the talking

As we can see Denmark is doing extremely better than we are ever going to do.

I will talk about different issues in the next round

Back to you Con


Debate Round No. 2


In your entire argument, you did not mention the greatest driver for a successful nation. That driver is innovation. I will speak more on this later in my statement. You mention Denmark as a model for success. You mention the dependence on government as a necessary means. I will speak on these. Surprisingly, you did not mention income inequality. This is a typical centerpiece of the socialist argument. Income inequality ties to poverty, which you did mention. I will speak on this as well. I will try to make this quick. I do not need graphs or copied material from websites to make my point.

Let me start off with myself. I had my first job when I was 12 years old as a paperboy. I made $20 a week. I worked at a pizza parlor making $6.75/hr. during high school. I worked at least 2-3 different jobs while attending college. Got hired at a purchasing firm 8 years ago and am now making over $100K a year. I was fortunate enough to find my wife that had a very similar path as me. You know what, she makes more than I do!! We have a combined income of over $210K. Was it hard to get here? Yes. Was it worth it? Yes. Did a capitalist system make this possible? Yes.

Setting goals, working hard and rewarding success will always lead to prosperity in a capitalist system. In a socialist system, success is capped and working hard is a moot point. I love parables, so here's another one:

Think of government models as a classroom. You have your Capitalist classroom, your socialist classroom and your communist classroom:

The Capitalist classroom has a diverse group where some students raise their hands, participate, study and get involved. There are students that don't always get involved, but they do the homework and do some participating. Then, there are students that do not participate, do not do any homework and do not study. The teacher grades the students on an A-F scale. The first group is given A's due to their hard work and dedication. The second group gets B's and C's. The last group gets D's and F's.

The Socialist classroom has the same group but only gives out three grades, C+, C and C-.

The Communist classroom has the same group and gives out one grade, Pass.

Socialism is half-way to Communism. Anyone that thinks Communism is a great idea, please move to North Korea and let me know how amazing things are there.

On to Denmark. First off, why would the greatest nation on Earth want to be like Denmark? They are an above average nation with zero innovation and by no means at all, a super power. You forgot to mention the reason for their success: Near zero diversity and only 9 million citizens. 88% of Denmark is white, the rest are immigrants that are mainly of white background as well. America is the most diverse nation on the planet. Take pride in that. We also have over 300 million people. It's like comparing an apple seed to an orange tree. Yes, the seed is extremely easy to maintain while it's in it's shell, but what happens when it grows out?
We have the innovation and drive to succeed. This comes from alluring the best and smartest from around the world to come here become a success. What Denmark innovation has changed the world?

Let me give you some innovation only made possible by a Capitalist system:

*Apple computers
*Microsoft Windows
*Las Vegas
*Cell phones
*even the DailyKos
*massage parlors
*Leaf blowers
*Tide detergent

There are many more, but none of these were created by government. Government plays a role in getting the infrastructure in place for our nation to thrive, but that should be the extent of the involvement. The Obamacare website was build from the ground up by the government and you saw how that went.

Oh, articles from the Daily Kos!!??. Are you kidding me? That liberal rag of website that promotes socialism is what you quote. They are not a trusted source for any information other than brainwashing the weak-minded. It's like me quoting Rush Limbaugh.

As for your list: Some of the programs are needed and some are not. Government will always play a role in citizens lives regardless of the type of society we choose to follow. As we increase in population, the size government grows along with it. But how far does government need to reach?

Here is your list:

1) Defense is important. This keeps our nation safe and our boarders protected(which Obama completely despises)
2) Highways/Roads. Tax $ go towards roads but is extremely wasted and not used efficiently(politics and earmarks).
3) Public Libraries. Not needed at all. We have bookstores and the Internet.
4) You skipped
5) Fire dept is necessary but can become privatized and more efficient.
6) Postal service. LOL. Please. UPS, Fed Ex, Google, DHL, Wells Fargo, Frickin stagecoaches all do a better job.
7) Student loans. Can and should be privatized. We have dozens of banks. Competition will lower prices on loan interest.
8) Bridges. Can and should by paid by tolls to a private company that maintains them.
9) Garbage collection. What? Does the Obama Waste Removal service come by your house every week? WM comes down my street. I pay them a monthly bill. If I want someone else, I can find a different service.
10) Public landfills. Government land that should be sold to private companies/persons. Competition will drive the market.
11) War. Same as #1.
12) Farm subsidies. Not needed. Highly regulated sector that cripples farmers into needing subsidizing.
13) CIA. Part of #1
14) FBI. Part of #1 and #13, should work as one entity to reduce costs.
15) Congressional Health care. For the 535 members? Yes, they can sign up and pay a portion of their check if they choose, for a group plan like Kaiser or Anthem like every other business.
16) Polio Vaccine. The people's choice. Should have no government involved what so ever.
17) EPA. Not needed. Citizens can vote on restrictions that are enforced by state governments. Too much spending due to un-necessary regulations.
18) Social Security. Is dead broke. Program failed.
19) Museums. Nice try, private donations account for an enormous amount and could be 100% privatized.
20) Public schools. The teacher unions destroyed the quality and the system is a joke. Private schools perform at a much higher rate and always have better test scores.

Socialism is a step towards Communism. Deny it all you want, but the more control our government has over our lives, the worse the quality of life becomes. We do not need an overhaul into a failed European idea. The nation would be launched into catastrophic debt and all of the wealth would disappear(the rich would move their business outside US) along with thousands of jobs. Riots would be a daily thing. Police would line the streets. Poverty would skyrocket. Is this what you want America to be like?


Since this is the conclusion I will now focus on the resolution

Is Socialism better than Capitalism

Better being defined as: what is best for those without or those in need and not focus on those who are rich

Democratic socialism has helped the poor in many ways in contrary to the US form of capitalism

Lets take a gander at more graphs

click="document.location='/Reformist/photos/album/5682/39284/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5682/332567-5682-7nhb8-a.jpg" alt="" />

Unemployment rates are higher than the US. Making the poor being able to have jobs is beneficial to them and makes this society "better" than our current system

click="document.location='/Reformist/photos/album/5682/39283/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5682/332567-5682-ran88-a.jpg" alt="" />

Denmarks poverty level is again smaller than ours. Thanks socialism

click="document.location='/Reformist/photos/album/5682/39287/'" src="../../../photos/albums/1/6/5682/332567-5682-e9f8n-a.jpg" alt="" />

Poverty levels are again shown in this picture drastically gone down

So according to my graphs socialism helps the poor. Which is according to our definiton. Better.

Finally i would like to add some refutations to my opponents arguement in this final round.

Con has listed no sources. None. All of his arguements therefore have no impact at all.

North korea isnt communist. Its state capitalist.

Poverty levels do not go up with socialism. They go down as i have shown

Thank you Con for a nice debate. I sense you have some bad feelings toward Obama. We can have a debate about whether he was a good president after this debate.

Debate Round No. 3
87 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
#1 - What results? Yes, they affect other people's perception of me, as they've clearly affected yours. I'm saying that those answers do have meaning, but that the meaning you're applying to them is either hyperbolized or just plain wrong in most instances. Just because I answered the questions doesn't mean I submitted to your interpretation of those answers.

#2 - Yes, there is the option to put undecided. That isn't what I chose to do on every answer, chiefly because each answer came with the ability to post one's reasoning, which I used on several of them to explain why I feel the way I do and where the nuance is. Also, when I'm leaning in a certain direction overall on a certain issue, I do tend to still post my general views. Again, they're not supposed to be answers to specific questions of "what would you do if...?" They're general bents.

#3 - I think you're applying excessive meaning to the selection of Pro or Con. Again, selecting one or the other doesn't prescribe how you perceive all issues absolutely that could involve that given issue. Just because that's how you personally interpret an answer to the Big Issues doesn't mean that's how everyone else perceives it.

#4 - I do think you've misrepresented my beliefs. The answers to those questions aren't binary absolutes. Just because I support welfare doesn't mean I support the specific system we have in place, nor does it mean that I absolutely support any specific system of how it's currently implemented. Just because I'm a fan of the principles behind Medicare and Medicaid doesn't mean I think those programs are well run. Just because I support Obama doesn't mean I agree with every piece of policy he's drafted, and I have a number of qualms with Obamacare specifically. The fact that I don't think these systems are as effective as they could be, and the fact that I have major qualms with them, doesn't mean that I don't generally support them, either based on other aspects or possibilities.
Posted by ho11yw00d 7 months ago
#1 - Why answer questions, then deny the results of your answers?

#2 - If you flexible in any way on a question, there is a third option besides Pro and Con...... Don't answer it.

#3 - Answering Pro or Con solidifies your stance on a position. If you are unsure of a question.....see #2.

#4 - If you feel I misrepresented your beliefs....please read #1 and #2.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
Yes, it's cherry-picking when you're specifically selecting aspects of my profile that support your point and treating others as blatant lies on my part. You're also jumping to conclusions about my views based on a binary Pro/Con response to a number of inherently complex issues, many of which I'm for in certain instances, but not in others. You're assuming the application of a very generalized view without any of the accompanying nuance, and in almost every case, you're simply applying a socialist bent because that's how you see it, rather than incorporating any of the reasoning I provided in support of or opposed to each of these issues. For example, I don't see a flat tax as capitalist, just as I don't see a progressive tax as socialist. I'll admit that on some issues I have a socialist bent, but that doesn't mean that the majority of the time I support socialist policies, which is what you're claiming.

I can't do it today, it'd have to be over the weekend. Besides, we'll need to come up with an actual topic to debate and not just a concept. Redistribution is a concept, not a topic.
Posted by ho11yw00d 7 months ago
Cherry picking????? I just selected a couple. I wasn't planning on making a long list, but just to prove my point that you are clearly a cradle-to-grave government assistance/entitlement supporter,

Here's more:

Barack(Entitlement King) Obama - Pro
Medicare/Medicaid - Pro
Obamacare - Pro
Social Programs - Pro
Social Security - Pro
Welfare - Pro

Is any of this incorrect?

I'll do a Google Hangout session. We can start with Redistribution as the topic. What is your screen name?
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago
It also says:

Capitalism: Pro
Free trade: Pro
National retail sales tax: Con

And yes, I do believe in those as well. I can and have supported them. My views are, to my knowledge, distinct from John Oliver and Michael Moore. You pretend you know me quite well, and yet you're quite clearly cherry-picking from my profile in order to suit your views of how I'm biased. I can tell you that, in all honesty, if I'd been offered to take a side in this debate, I would have chosen capitalism. Whether you believe that or not is up to you.

I'm not here to tell you that I'm somehow above any partisan debacles. We're all a part of them to some degree, as you clearly are. But I can justify my views on all of these topics - I'm not just a lemming.

Also, I've done a great deal of live debates, particularly on topics given to me with only about 15-20 minutes to research it before we start, oftentimes when I'm expressly forbade to use the Internet. I make a point of knowing quite a bit about a wide variety of topics in order to effectively deal with any topic we might be handed. I'd love to have a live debate with you, and I think something through Google Hangouts would function just as well as in-person.

So then, how about it? Shall we pick a topic and have this out?
Posted by ho11yw00d 7 months ago

Your profile:
Socialism(Busted) - Pro.
Redistribution(A Socialist measure) - Pro.
Progressive Tax(Another Socialist measure) - Pro.
Stimulus Spending(More government spending = Socialism) - Pro.
Estate Tax(More taxing of the upper class) - Pro.
Flat Tax(The most fair system) - Con.

Do you even read half of the stuff you support? Or do you just answer questions the way you think Michael Moore or John Oliver would?

Do not try to pass off this persona that you are middle ground with an advanced understanding of government roles and society function. You are a common everyday lemming that the Democrats/Media love. You soak up their half-baked liberal logic like a sponge. I would love to have a one on one, face to face debate with you about how badly you have been misinformed your whole life.

A real debate involves fast thinking and stored factual knowledge. My guess is you have neither, which is why you troll multiple debate sites looking to copy/paste info from Huffington Post or Daily Kos and pass it off as your argument.
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago

If you think I'm a socialist, then you're doing a pretty poor job of reading my profile, but that's neither here nor there. I didn't say that I'm completely unbiased, though I'd say if anything I'm biased toward your side of this debate. What I said is that Mighty is very clearly biased. My RFD explains my decision, and if you can find clear biases therein, please, point them out. Even if they do exist, though, that doesn't excuse using biased viewpoints to attack other people's votes.
Posted by Reformist 7 months ago
Soooooooooooo saaaaaaaaallllllllltttttttyyyyyyy

Also everyone has opinions doesn't mean their biased
Posted by ho11yw00d 7 months ago
@whiteflamer. Shut up. Look at your profile opinions again and tell me who's biased. You have to be one of the biggest hypocrites I have ever seen.

Go back to your bag of Cheetos in your mom's basement and curse the government while chanting, "Go Bernie!!" Scrub
Posted by whiteflame 7 months ago

First off, it's pretty clear from your comment that you didn't read any of our RFDs. Rather than calling us all morons for disagreeing with your views of how this debate went, you might actually engage with the substance of those RFDs and explain why they're problematic. That's a lot more productive than straw-manning us.

Second, it sounds like you're rather invested in this debate, particularly since it's apparent than you have strong views on the subject matter. You're welcome to have those views, as we all are, but your points regarding what was actually said in this debate and the way they were viewed are tainted by those views. It's difficult to take your comment as a serious, objective criticism of our votes when it's clear that you were biased in favor of Con from the outset of this debate.
4 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 4 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Given in comments.
Vote Placed by JOHNCENA1738 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:01 
Reasons for voting decision: Ho11yw00d did not use proper conduct, and was very rude to his opponent. He attacked his opponent rather than the argument multiple times, but both had equally convincing arguments.
Vote Placed by Hayd 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Reasons for voting decision: Clear win for Pro. And the 7 point system sucks, use "Choose Winner" in the future
Vote Placed by TheBunnyAssassin 8 months ago
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:00 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't know which one is better sorry.